Use your car as a battery?

[Dillsue]

2 hours ago, Roger440 said:

To me, with the 4,5kw array i have on a pallet, ignoring payback, id like to install it, make it much bigger, heat up water for heating, and if i had an EV. maybe charge that too, and discharge back to house. Sounds simple enough when said like that. Try understanding how that would all work, never mind put it together. 

It's straight forward when you break it down into separate units. I have a PV install training rig and be happy to give you a bit of time on it if it meant getting your panels off that pallet and working.

[Crofter]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

What make is that?

Would do most of my daytime loads.

I've actually had two different ones.

The first one was an Epever 3kw which died following when it was switched off whilst running. Should have survived that but sometimes you get unlucky.

I replaced it with a Victron 3kva (2.4kw) which was double the price but I didn't want to have a cheap one let me down again.

[Crofter]

32 minutes ago, joe90 said:

But your “label” says Isle of Skye ?

Yup, that's home, but I'm away travelling on the boat for a few years just now.

[SteamyTea]

Just now, Crofter said:

Victron 3kva (2.4kw)

Victron always were the off grid choice.

[Crofter]

Just now, SteamyTea said:

Victron always were the off grid choice.

I used to think people were daft to pay the Victron premium. But their prices have come down recently and now that I've got a few bits of Victron gear I completely understand why it's the most popular choice.

[Gone West]

3 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

 

In economics there is a term 'competitive advantage'.

So I guess that means worse working conditions and animal welfare.

 

3 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

There is a saying that you cannot have 'quick, cheap and good', well you can,

So I guess that means worse working conditions and animal welfare, as it's not been mentioned. So not comparing like with like.

 

There is a small abbatoir on the outskirts of the village which is used by the local farmers for slaughtering their cattle and sheep. I can buy cuts of beef or lamb directly from the farmer a couple of hundreds metres down the road. The cattle and sheep were kept in the fields adjacent to my garden. So the meat would have travelled a couple of miles maximum. You won't convince me that buying meat from the other side of the world is better for me or the planet.

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, Crofter said:

travelling on the boat

Sure you have mentioned it  but what sort of boat is it.

@saveasteading has a thread about what is needed to build in a bit of resilience for when things go wrong in the world.

I suggested a boat.

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, Gone West said:

So I guess that means worse working conditions and animal welfare, as it's not been mentioned. So not comparing like with like

Not necessarily. If you think about animal welfare too long, you end up a vegan.

3 minutes ago, Gone West said:

You won't convince me that buying meat from the other side of the world is better for me or the planet.

So, as an example, how much energy is used to bring in food for a few bullocks, compared to feeding thousands of them.

I was at university with a couple of guys from Uganda, their farming model is very different from ours, as is the Argentinian, Australian, Kenyan, Spanish, French etc.

Some are better, some are worse.

 

[Gone West]

2 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

So, as an example, how much energy is used to bring in food for a few bullocks

The sun provides most of the energy. Grass for around half the year and either hay, haylage or silage for the other half plus some cattle feed.

[joe90]

When I lived in Devon a local farmer told me most cattle there was raised on concrete and fed “meal”. But as @Gone West says local grass fed meat is available. It’s personal choice and not just down to financial/energy driven effectiveness, it’s good we have a  choice that we can make.

[Kelvin]

When consider the huge economies of scale in farming in some other countries and cheaper labour costs it’s easy enough to see why it’s cheaper. However on principle we only buy meat that is reared local to us consequently it’s dearer but we also cut down on the meat we eat so our spend on meat is less than it used to be. But the quality is better and the money is supporting local farmers. 

[Crofter]

52 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Sure you have mentioned it  but what sort of boat is it.

@saveasteading has a thread about what is needed to build in a bit of resilience for when things go wrong in the world.

I suggested a boat.

Moody 39 from the late 70s. So a very basic old tub of a thing. With a little lateral thinking it wasn't too hard to find space for 1200w of solar (200w of that charges the old lead acid system which I kept in place as a backup, the main lithium system uses the remaining 1kw)

[SteamyTea]

47 minutes ago, Gone West said:

Grass for around half the year and either hay, haylage or silage for the other half plus some cattle feed.

 

46 minutes ago, joe90 said:

When I lived in Devon a local farmer told me most cattle there was raised on concrete and fed “meal”.

 

12 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

But the quality is better and the money is supporting local farmers. 

Here is a picture of a beef farm near to me.

All outdoor reared.

Like this all year round.

Cornish beef anyone?

 

[joe90]

1 hour ago, Crofter said:

I'm away travelling on the boat for a few years

Can we be nosey and ask where you are at the moment? (being nosey really)

[Roger440]

3 hours ago, JamesPa said:

@Roger440 We have heard quite a lot about what you are against, and lets be honest, attacking suggestions made by others without making a counter-suggestion is the easy part of any discussion.  However the above comment suggests that you also have views on the harder part of the discussion, ie that you are also for something.  Can you enlighten us what it is that we should be doing, in your view, that we are not doing?

 

I thought i had. Twice.  Prepare for whats coming.

 

In the UK, primarily i think thats going to be more rain. Much more frequent flooding events. Whatever else, i think we can all agree, less rain is very unlikely! At the moment we tinker at the fringes, dont fund it well, maintain jack all, build on flood plains, and pay lip service to SUDS regulations. Theres a lot of the UK's housing in flood prone areas. Its likely that many will simply become unlivable. Where will those people go? Can you protect them? Who is thinking about it? And coming up with a plan? No one is the answer. 

 

And i guess we will will have more exceptional heat events. The whole grant process effectively bars fitting of anything than can do cooling. Like A2A systems. Bonkers, just bonkers. During those heat events, you tend to find its bright and sunny. So lots of energy to be had to drive them. But no, lets make sure we cant fit the very thing we are going to need with increasing frequency..

 

I could go on, but dont see much point. These are sensible, practical things we could do to deal with events that are almost certainly going to happen, ASHP's or not. And in the end, deal with them is exactly what we will end up having to do. At huge cost.

[Roger440]

4 hours ago, saveasteading said:

Is that the one where the Christmas lights are still up because the man that does it is injured?

Dont think so?

 

[Roger440]

3 hours ago, Crofter said:

I don't think it's hugely relevant to a house building forum since it's all 12v off grid stuff. But a bit of info about it:

 

 1kw of PV charging 6.6kwh of 12v LiFePO4 batteries via MPPT charge controllers. 3kva inverter to supply the AC loads.

 

This powers all of my domestic systems including fridge, freezer, induction hob, air fryer, electric mini oven, lights, etc etc.

 

I have a gas cooker which is my backup, but I very rarely need that- maybe one day a month on average.

 

The battery cost about £800, the inverter was about £700. MPPTs about £200. Panels and other bits were dirt cheap- eBay, second hand, etc.

 

The secret is that I'm not in the UK- PV works very well in sunny countries, despite what the newspapers tell you 😂

 

Ahh, yes, if its 12volt that isnt that relevant to the rest of us

 

You name and location suggest more of a sideways rain environment that sunshine!

[Roger440]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

Not necessarily. If you think about animal welfare too long, you end up a vegan.

So, as an example, how much energy is used to bring in food for a few bullocks, compared to feeding thousands of them.

I was at university with a couple of guys from Uganda, their farming model is very different from ours, as is the Argentinian, Australian, Kenyan, Spanish, French etc.

Some are better, some are worse.

 

 

Like gone west, the quality of the meat trumps the energy used. Im eating it. That stuff from 5000 miles away is highly unlikely to be as good for you for a whole host of reasons.

 

Eating crap, because its saved energy isnt happening for me.

 

My last round of lamb came from animals that have grazed in my field.

[SteamyTea]

Food is getting like religion, based on nothing but believes.

But then the food industry is good at corrupting evidence.

 

People got poisoned at the Fad Duck after all.

 

 

[FuerteStu]

6 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Food is getting like religion, based on nothing but believes.

But then the food industry is good at corrupting evidence.

 

People got poisoned at the Fad Duck after all.

 

 

So quick to condemn everyone who's opinion differs. 

 

Just because what you see on the field next door is rotten, doesn't mean they all are. 

 

One minute you are saying the large scale food production is the only economic viability, next you're saying it's abhorrent, yet you disagree when other people tell you about their local situations? 

 

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? 

[SteamyTea]

1 minute ago, FuerteStu said:

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing

Only with you because I am a 

  

5 hours ago, FuerteStu said:

condescending prick

There is no need for you to reply.

 

 

For everyone else, just highlighting that sustainability is it is not as simple as it first seems.  Be great if it was, would have sorted out the nonsense several millenniums ago.

[Roger440]

2 hours ago, Dillsue said:

It's straight forward when you break it down into separate units. I have a PV install training rig and be happy to give you a bit of time on it if it meant getting your panels off that pallet and working.

 

Its the vehicle charging and using it as a house battery that seems to be fraught with complexity.

 

That is a generous offer, which i shall likely take up, albeit not immediately.

 

I currently have nothing to connect said panels too. Though as i may have mentioned, i think for me, with no EV, and not one in the foreseeable future, i think heating water is what id like to do. So i need to make some progress on that, though that seems equally complicated! I cant see the point of seperate batteries, when every EV has a set in.

 

 

[FuerteStu]

4 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Just highlighting that sustainability is it is not as simple as it first seems.  

No it isn't. 

 

But just letting the current unsustainable situation carry on because there more sustainable ones aren't perfect it's a bizarre stand point. 

 

No matter how you phrase it, thinking you know better than everyone else and belittling any other suggestions is not helpful to your cause. 

[JamesPa]

1 hour ago, Roger440 said:

 

I thought i had. Twice.  Prepare for whats coming.

 

In the UK, primarily i think thats going to be more rain. Much more frequent flooding events. Whatever else, i think we can all agree, less rain is very unlikely! At the moment we tinker at the fringes, dont fund it well, maintain jack all, build on flood plains, and pay lip service to SUDS regulations. Theres a lot of the UK's housing in flood prone areas. Its likely that many will simply become unlivable. Where will those people go? Can you protect them? Who is thinking about it? And coming up with a plan? No one is the answer. 

 

And i guess we will will have more exceptional heat events. The whole grant process effectively bars fitting of anything than can do cooling. Like A2A systems. Bonkers, just bonkers. During those heat events, you tend to find its bright and sunny. So lots of energy to be had to drive them. But no, lets make sure we cant fit the very thing we are going to need with increasing frequency..

 

I could go on, but dont see much point. These are sensible, practical things we could do to deal with events that are almost certainly going to happen, ASHP's or not. And in the end, deal with them is exactly what we will end up having to do. At huge cost.

Actually I would agree we should do this.  I think we may also have to prepare for it rapidly getting a lot colder, when the Gulf stream eventually switches off (which they are now saying could be as early as 2025, although that is at the extreme of the estimates).

 

We also need, if we don't succeed in reducing climate change, to prepare for mass immigration on a scale we haven't previously seen, global food shortages (which will affect us badly because we aren't anywhere near self sufficient in food), and quite likely a breakdown in democracy (or a total break down in law and order) and war as governments struggle to deal with it all.  Certainly also a massive rise in right wing authoritarianism, which thrives and feeds on division created by hardship, which some politicians ruthlessly exploit for their own gains, relying on the ignorance of the many and their control of (or friends in) certain of the media..

 

Actually I think we should do both what you suggest and take measures to reduce climate change so that the worst future effects are at least ameliorated.  Frankly I don't buy the argument 'we cant afford it', the truth is we choose not to and prioritize instead foreign holidays, vast televisions, swanky cars, holiday homes, space tourism, fancy watches and phones, and many other trappings of capitalism.  And we allow billionaires to impoverish millions, whilst making their money out of pandering to these material desires.   My personal view is that we cant afford not to do it, because if we don't the cost will eventually be much higher.  Had we started 30 years ago (or earlier) when the science was already well known, It would have been a lot less painful than it is now, but we didn't so it isn't.  We have only ourselves to blame for that.

 

Of course if none of us care about children or grandchildren, then its a good bet that the best personal strategy is just to do what you say and nothing else, and a fair bet (but a long way from a certainty) that the worst effects will occur after our lifetimes.  But if our horizons extend more than about 20-30 years, then I think the science and the way way the world will react to climate stress, says we have to go a lot further.

 

Personally I dont have children, so I could easily adopt the selfish 

Edited February 24 by JamesPa

[Roger440]

4 minutes ago, JamesPa said:

Actually I would agree we should do this.  I think we may also have to prepare for it rapidly getting a lot colder, when the Gulf stream eventually switches off (which they are now saying could be as early as 2025, although that is at the extreme of the estimates).

 

We also need, if we don't succeed in reducing climate change, to prepare for mass immigration on a scale we haven't previously seen, global food shortages (which will affect us badly because we aren't anywhere near self sufficient in food), and quite likely a breakdown in democracy (or a total break down in law and order) and war as governments struggle to deal with it all.  Certainly a rise in right wing authoritarianism, which thrives and feeds on division created by hardship.

 

Actually I think we should do both what you suggest and take measures to reduce climate change so that the worst future effects are at least ameliorated.  Frankly I don't buy the argument 'we cant afford it', the truth is we choose not to and prioritize instead foreign holidays, vast televisions, swanky cars, holiday homes, space tourism, fancy watches and phones, and many other trappings of capitalism.  And we allow billionaires to impoverish millions, whilst making their money out of pandering to these material desires.   My personal view is that we cant afford not to do it, because if we don't the cost will eventually be much higher.  Had we started 30 years ago (or earlier) when the science was already well known, It would have been a lot less painful than it is now, but we didn't so it isn't.  We have only ourselves to blame for that.

 

Of course if none of us care about children or grandchildren, then its a good bet that the best personal strategy is just to do what you say and nothing else, and a fair bet (but a long way from a certainty) that the worst effects will occur after our lifetimes.  But if our horizons extend more than about 20-30 years, then I think the science and the way way the world will react to climate stress, says we have to go a lot further.

 

Personally I dont have children, so I could easily adopt the selfish 

 

Im inclined to agree with most of that. So little to be optimistic about then!

 

Apart from the spaffing billions on stuff that wont make any meaningful difference. Cut straight to the end game. Anything else is a complete waste of time and money. Though you say we can afford it, as you observe, we spend it on other stuff. For us to afford it, the fact remains that peoples standard of living will go backwards in a big way. More of an exsistence than a life. Humans are humans, they are not going to agree to that on a voluntary basis. Only a dictatorship can impose that. I cant go along with that.

 

And even if we did, the reality is, most of the world wont or cant afford it.

 

So prepare for the inevitable